ll\epublic of tbe ~btlipptnes

g,upreme lll:.ourt
;fflanila
FIRST DIVISION

GALILEO A. MAGLASANG, G.R. No. 248616

Petitioner,

Present:

PERALTA, CJ,
Chairperson,
- versus - CAGUIOA,
CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN,JJ

Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. JAN 12 2021
x - - - - - - - - - - --------------------

DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed by

petitioner Galileo A. Maglasang (Galileo) assailing the Decision2 dated
December 14, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated July 17, 2019 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01649-MIN. The CA affirmed the
Judgment4 dated November 17, 2017 and the Order5 dated March 22, 2018 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20, m
Criminal Case No. 2014-1164. Thefallo of the Judgment provides:

WHEREFORE, there being proof beyond

reasonable doubt, accused Galileo A. Maglasang is found
guilty.

4
-·-
Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Oscar V.
Badelles and Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales; id. at 27-40.
Id. at 46-48.
Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Gil G. Bollozos; id. at I00-l l6.
9
5
Id. at 122.
 r

Decision 2 G.R. No. 248616

Pursuant to the Supreme Court Administrative

Circular No. 08-2008 issued on 25 January 2008, accused is
meted to pay a fine of P4,000.00.

SO ORDERED. 6 (Emphasis in the original)

Facts of the Case

Galileo was charged with libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) in a Reproduced Information7 dated February 22, 2016. The
Reproduced Information is based on the Resolution8 dated June 13, 2014 of
Assistant City Prosecutor Abo! Alam A. Padate. The Reproduced Information
states:

That on 30 March 2014, in the City of Cagayan de

Oro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, illegally,
criminally and with the intention of attacking the honesty,
virtue and reputation of offended parties CAPT. RENE A.
MAGLASANG and ENGR. NELIA COCOS, who is the
newly-elected President ofMisarnis Institute of Technology
(MIT) and Registrar of MIT-Ozamis City, respectively, and
for the further purpose of exposing the latter to public hatred,
contempt and ridicule, wrote, composed and caused the
publication of a LETTER-COMPLAINT, which contains
injurious, malicious and defamatory imputations of an
alleged illegal act committed by the offended parties, the
pertinent provision of said letter reads, thus:

COMMO Ferdinand M. Velasco PCG

Commander
Coast Guard District Northern Mindanao
Corrales Extension, Macabalan,
Cagayan De Oro City

Dear Commander Velasco,

Re: Spurious S. 0. 's and CAV's of graduates of the

Misamis Institute of Technology CHED Region Office X

xxxx

I write in my capacity as President of the Misamis

Institute of Technology, Inc. (hereafter, "MIT"), in relation
to the case, entitled MISAMIS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, INC versus ZENAIDA GERSANA,
CHEDRO X Regional Director, and ROY ROQUE U
AGCORPA, CHEDRO X Chief Administrative Officer, now
pending before the Office of the Executive Director of the
Commission on Higher Education (hereafter, "CHED").

As a consequence to the above-mentioned case, we

uncovered that CHED Region Office X at Cagayan de Oro
City had turned over SO. 's and CAV's to Rene A.

6
Id. at 116.
7
Records, pp. 38-39.
Id. at 11-15.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 248616

Maglasang and to persons associated with him, including

Engr. Nelia Cocos, who, in turn, sold said documents to
unsuspecting students and graduates ofMIT

Rene A. Maglasang and all persons who take

instructions from him, including Engr. Nelia Cocos, have
nothing to do with MIT and do not have in their custody the
academic records of the students and graduates of MIT to
whom these S. 0. 'sand CAV's pertain.

xxxx

Very Truly Yours,

Sgd. Galileo A. Maglasang

with which statements, the said accused meant and intended

to convey, as in _fact he did mean and convey false and
malicious imputation that the said offended parties were
unscrupulous and devious individuals which imputations as
he well knew, were false and malicious, offensive and
derogatory to the good name, character and reputation of the
offended parties and that the said letter was solely written
and circulated by the said accused for no other purpose than
to impeach and besmirch the good name, character and
reputation of the offended parties, in order to expose him, as
in fact, he was exposed to dishonor, discredit, public hatred,
contempt and ridicule, to their damage and prejudice.

Contrary to law. 9 (Emphasis and italics in the

original.)

Galileo was originally scheduled to be arraigned on February 3, 2015.

However, a fire destroyed the records of this case on January 30, 2015. Thus,
the Office of the City Prosecutor prayed for the reconstitution of the records
of the case. 10 This was granted by the RTC in an Order 11 dated November 12,
2015. On June 2, 2016, Galileo was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. 12

Respondent presented private complainant Rene A. Maglasang (Rene)

and Ensign Ronnie Rey de la Vega Pabico (P/Ens Pabico), Community
Relations Officer of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) in Northern Mindanao,
as its witnesses. According to respondent, Engineer Allan A. Maglasang
(Engr. Allan), Rene, and Galileo's brother, who is also a part of the PCG,
called Rene on March 31, 2014 to inform him that the office of Commodore
Ferdinand Velasco (Commo Velasco), Commander of the PCG Region X,
Cagayan de Oro City, received a letter dated March 30, 2014 from Galileo. 13
The letter reads:

I write in my capacity as President of the Misamis

Institute of Technology, Inc. (hereafter, "MIT"), in relation
to the case, entitled MISAMIS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, INC. versus ZENAIDA GERSANA,

9 Id. at 38-39.
JO
Records, p. I.
11
Id. at 33.
12
Id. at 61.
13
Rollo, p. 30.
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 248616

CHEDRO X Regional Director, and ROY ROQUE U.

AGCORPA, CHEDRO X ChiefAdministrative Officer, now
pending before the Office of the Executive Director of the
Commission on Higher Education (hereafter, "CHED").

As a consequence to the above-mentioned case, we

uncovered that CHED Region Office X at Cagayan de Oro
City had turned over S.O.'s and CAV's to Rene A.
Maglasang and to persons associated with him, including
Engr. Nelia Cocos, who, in turn sold said documents to
unsuspecting students and graduates of MIT.

Rene A. Maglasang and all persons who take

instructions from him, including Engr. Nelia Cocos, have
nothing to do with MIT and do not have in their custody the
academic records of the students and graduates of MIT to
whom these S.O.'s and CAV's pertain.

In an effort to avert damage the issuance of these

spurious S.O.'s and CAV's, the Office of the Executive
Director of CHED, in the letter, dated March 6, 2014,
machine copy of which attached hereto as Annex A,
addressed to me clarified that indeed the issuance of the
S.O.'s and the CAV's to persons who do not have custody of
the academic records of the students and graduates of MIT
to whom the S.O.'s and CAV's pertain is irregular.
Consequently, the Office of the Executive Director of
CHED, in the Memorandum from the Office ofthe Executive
Director, dated March 27, 2014, machine copy of which
attached hereto as Annex B, directed ZENAIDA
GERSANA, CHEDRO X Regional Director, to issue the
S.O.'s and CAV's in accordance with the proper procedure
ofCHED.

The Office of the Executive Director of CHED, in

both the letter, dated March 6, 2014 (Annex A) and the
Memorandum from the Office of the Executive Director,
dated March 27, 2014 (Annex B), specifically addressed me,
not Rene A. Maglasang, as the President of MIT.

I, therefore, request your good office not to accept

the following S.O.'s and CAV's issued by CHEDRO X, to
wit: XX X.

The foregoing list may not have been exhaustive. I,

therefore, request that any document which appears to be
signed by Rene A. Maglasang in which he described himself
as the President of MIT, and by Engr. Nelia Cocos, in which
she described herself as the Registrar MIT, be referred to the
Office of the Executive Director of CHED for authenticity.

Lastly, may I request that your good office verify the

foregoing matter with the Office of the Executive Director
ofCHED.

Thank you for your giving me your precious time and

attention. 14 (Emphasis in the original.)

14
Records, pp. 8-10.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 248616

Upon Rene's request, Engr. Allan obtained a copy of the letter and gave
it to Rene. Rene, his family, and the staff of the Misamis Institute of
Technology, Inc. (MIT) read the letter. Rene felt insulted and maligned by the
accusations in the letter. As such, he and Engr. Nelia Cocos (Engr. Cocos;
collectively, private complainants) filed a complaint-affidavit for libel against
Galileo. Galileo was charged with libel. 15

Galileo did not present any evidence in his defense 16 but submitted a
Memorandum 17 to the RTC. Galileo argued in his Memorandum that the
original letter was not presented as evidence. Respondent was unable to prove
that the original letter was destroyed or lost. Hence, the case should be
dismissed, and Galileo should be acquitted. 18

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Judgment 19 dated November 17, 2017, the RTC found Galileo
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel and imposed the penalty
of a fine of P4,000.00 upon him. 20 The RTC held that all the elements oflibel
under Article 353 of the RPC were established in this case. The prosecution
presented Rene and P/Ens Pabico as its witnesses. P/Ens Pabico testified as to
the existence of the letter addressed to Commo Velasco that was on file in their
office. First, Galileo's letter destroyed the character of private complainants
by imputing that they committed irregularities, specifically selling Special
Orders (SOs) and Certification, Authentication, and Verification (CAVs) to
students of MIT even though they have nothing to do with MIT and do not
have custody of the records of its students and graduates. Second, these
imputations were malicious. Galileo did not present evidence to overcome the
presumption that every defamatory imputation is malicious, even if it be true,
if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. Third, the
imputations made by Galileo were addressed to private complainants who are
natural persons. Fourth, the malicious imputations made by Galileo brought
dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon private complainants. Fifth, Galileo sent
the letter to a third person, namely Comma Velasco. Rene learned about the
letter through Engr. Allan. Hence, the element of publication, which requires
the delivery of the libelous matter by mailing it, reading it, or communicating
its purpose in any manner to any person other than the one libeled, was
satisfied. 21

Under the RPC, libel is punishable by imprisonment of prison

correccional in its minimum and maximum period or a fine ranging from
P200.00 to P6,000.00, or both, in addition to the civil action that may be
brought by the offended party. 22 Pursuant to this Court's Administrative

15
Rollo, p. 30.
J6
Id. at 31.
17
Records, pp. 266-270.
18 Id. at 266-269.
19
Supra note 4.
20
Rollo, p. 116.
21
Id. at 113-115.
22
Id.at 115.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 248616

Circular No. 08-2008 23 issued on January 25, 2008, the RTC considered the
following factors in imposing a penalty of a fine alone on Galileo: (1) Rene
and Galileo are full-blooded brothers; (2) they are not in good terms because
both were claiming to be the President of MIT; (3) this is the first time that
Rene sued Galileo for libel; and (4) Engr. Cocos did not testify. 24

Galileo filed a motion for reconsideration,2 5 but it was denied. 26 He then

appealed to the CA. 27

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On December 14, 2018, the CA rendered its Decision28 affirming the

Judgment of the RTC. The CA held that respondent was able to establish that
the original letter was unavailable and cannot be produced in Court.
Therefore, the RTC was correct in admitting the photocopy of the letter as
evidence pursuant to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
The CA gave credence to the testimony of P/Ens Pabico that Commo
Velasco's secretary emailed a copy of the letter to him sometime in January
or February 2017. The secretary is no longer connected with PCG while
Comma Velasco is under investigation and is in a floating status. P/Ens Pabico
confirmed that his office received a copy of the letter. 29

The CA also agreed with the RTC that all the elements of libel are
present in the case, namely identifiability, defamatory allegation, and malice.
Private complainants were clearly identified in the letter. The statements in
the letter are defamatory because it ascribed the commission of irregular
transactions against private complainants and their possession of a vice or
defect, which tended to dishonor or discredit them and impeached their virtue,
credit, and reputation. The malice in the imputations may be inferred from the
ongoing legal dispute between Rene and Galileo over the leadership of MIT.
And the element of publication was satisfied when Galileo sent the letter to
Comma Velasco. Notably, Galileo did not question the presence of the
elements of libel in this case. 30

Galileo filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 31 After it was denied by the

32
CA, he filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

Galileo argued that under Best Evidence Rule in Section 3, Rule 130 of
the.Revised Rules on Evidence, when the subject of the inquiry is the contents
of the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original

23
Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases.
24
Rollo, pp. 115-116.
25
Id. at 117-121.
26
Id. at 122.
"28 Records, p. I 0.

29
30
31
32
Supra note 2.
Rollo, pp. 34-36.
Id. at 36-39.
Id. at41-45.
Supra note 3.
9
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 248616

document itself, except in cases specified under said rule. Secondary evidence
may only be accepted if the following are established: ( 1) the existence or due
execution of the original; (2) loss and destruction of the original or the reason
for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence
of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
Respondent did not exert any effort to justify the presentation of secondary
evidence instead of the original letter. P/Ens Pabico testified that he cannot
confirm if the letter was received by the PCG because he was not yet in PCG
when the letter was supposedly sent. He does not know Comma Velasco's
secretary who supposedly sent the email containing the letter or her location.
In addition, the printed copy of the letter brought by P/Ens Pabico bore the
marking "Annex A." This was the same marking placed on letter attached to
Rene's complaint-affidavit as Annex A. Galileo concluded that the letter
brought by P/Ens Pabico was actually given to him by respondent. Further,
respondent did not submit evidence that Comma Velasco brought the letter
with him after being separated from the PCG. Based on the foregoing, Galileo
asserted that respondent failed to prove that the letter cannot be produced in
court. 33

Respondent's Arguments

Respondent pointed out that Galileo's arguments in his petition are a

mere rehash of this arguments in his motions for reconsideration before the
RTC and the CA. The courts a quo have already ruled upon these matters. In
any case, respondent insisted that it was able to establish that the original letter
was not available through P /Ens Pabico' s testimony that Commo Velasco was
under investigation. Hence, Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence applies and respondent was justified in using copies of the letter
from Rene and P/Ens Pabico as evidence. 34

Respondent also argued that the CA was correct in affirming the RTC
that the elements of the crime of libel were established in this case. First, the
letter is clearly defamatory because it accused private complainants of
misrepresenting themselves as officers of MIT and sold fake and spurious SOs
and CAVs to unsuspecting students and graduates of MIT. Second, the
imputation in the letter is malicious. Pursuant to Article 3 54 of the RPC, every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. Galileo did not present
evidence to overcome this presumption. He did not show the existence of the
exceptions in Article 354, namely: (1) a private communication made by any
person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and
(2) a fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not
of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act perfonned by public officers in the exercise
of their functions. Third, the letter was given publicity when Galileo sent it to
Comma Velasco. It was also read by Galileo and Rene's family members and

33
Rollo, pp. 15-22.
34
Id. at 198-200.
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 248616

MIT officials. Considering the foregoing, respondent prayed that Galileo's

petition be dismissed. 35

Petitioner's Supplemental Argument

Galileo filed a Supplement to Petition for Review on Certiorari36

informing the Court that the RTC of Oroquieta City, Branch 14 rendered a
Decision37 dated November 12, 2019 issuing a writ of final injunction against
Rene and the members of his group enjoining them from proclaiming in public
and in judicial proceedings that: (1) the Decision dated July 29, 3003 of the
RTC in Special Civil Action Nos. OC-004 and OC-005, as well as the decision
of the CA affirming it, are still subsisting and enforceable; (2) the election
held at MIT on April 15, 2007 is null and void; and (3) Rene is still the
president ofMIT. 38
Issue

Whether the CA erred m affirming that Galileo 1s guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of libel.

Ruling of the Court

We grant the petition.

Article 353 39 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as a public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken
the memory of one who is dead. In order to be held liable for libel, it must be
established that: (1) the imputation is defamatory; (2) the imputation is
malicious; (3) the imputation was given publicity; and (4) the victim must be
identifiable. 40

The conflict of Rene and Galileo originated from their competing

claims over the management of MIT. This allegedly led Galileo to send a letter
to Commo Velasco containing malicious imputations against private
complainants. 41 Thus, proof of the letter is necessary for the conviction of
Galileo.

Section 19, 42 Rule 132 of the Revised Rules ofEvidence defines public
documents as those: (a) written official acts, or records of the official acts of

35
Id. at 201-203.
36
Id. at210-213.
37
Penned by Presiding Judge Nora B. Montejo; id. at 217-244.
38
Id. at2II-212, 243.
39
Article 353. Definition of Libel. -A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory
of one who is dead.
40
Soriano v. People, G.R. No. 225010, November 21, 2018.
41
Rollo, pp. 28-30.
42
Section 19. Classes of documents. - For the purpose oftheir presentation in evidence, docunients
are either public or private.
Public documents are:
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 248616

the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; (b) documents
acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by
law to be entered therein. All other documents are private. Since the letter
does not qualify as a public document, it is a private document. Section 20 of
Rule 13 2 states how private documents are proven:

Section 20. Proof ofprivate document. - Before any

private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified

as that which it is claimed to be.

Pursuant to Section 20, a private document may be authenticated by:

the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, the person
who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signature, being familiar
thereto or an expert, or the person to whom the parties to the instrument had
previously confessed execution thereof. 43 In this case, neither Rene nor P/Ens
Pabico saw the execution of the letter. Though Rene claimed that he was
personally familiar with Galileo's signature, he did not explain why or how
he became familiar with it. 44 As such, We cannot give credence to Rene's
claim because it does not have any basis. Aside from Rene and P/Ens Pabico,
no other witness attempted to authenticate the letter. Thus, respondent failed
to establish the due execution and authenticity of the letter.

Respondent also failed to justify its submission of photocopies of the

letter instead of its original. The Best Evidence Rule under Section 3, Rule
130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Section 3. Original document must be produced;

_exceptions. - When the subject of inquiry is the contents of
a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of

t
the offeror;

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
All other writings are private.
43
Young Builders Corp. i, Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 198998 (Resolution), June 19, 2019.
44 Records, p. 141.
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 248616

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the

control of the party against whom the evidence is offered,
and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts
or other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole;
and
(d) When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

Based on Section 3, the original document itself must be presented in

court, except in the instances specified in Section 3. With respect to the first
exception, Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states that:

Section 5. When original document is unavailable. -

When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated.

To prove that the letter was duly received by the PCG in Northern
Mindanao, respondent presented P/Ens Pabico as its witness. According to
P/Ens Pabico, he has been the Community Relations Officer in PCG Northern
Mindanao since November 2016. 45 After the RTC issued a Subpoena Duces
Tecum Ad Testificandum 46 addressed to the Chief or Records Officer of the
PCG Northern Mindanao to bring/produce the original letter, P/Ens Pabico
instructed his secretary to obtain a copy of said letter. The secretary of Commo
Velasco emailed a copy of the letter to him, through the official email address
of their office. During his testimony, P/Ens Pabico said that Commo Velasco
was under investigation while his secretary was no longer connected with the
PCQ_47

We find that P/Ens Pabico's testimony failed to establish that the letter
was sent by Galileo to Commo Velasco and that it can no longer be presented
in court. Notably, P/Ens Pabico is the Community Relations Officer of the
PCG Northern Mindanao and not its Records Officer. 48 He did not clarify
whether he had custody of the documents of the PCG Northern Mindanao as
its Community Relations Officer. More importantly, P/Ens Pabico said that "I
am not in the position to say we received a copy because during that time, I
was not yet in the Philippine Coast Guard, Sir." 49 When asked why he
instructed his secretary to find a copy of the letter after receiving the subpoena,
he replied that "I do not !mow if that certain file exists because during that
time I was not the Coast Guard during 2014, I was at training." 5 Clearly, °
P/Ens Pabico has no personal knowledge of whether the letter was received

45

f/
TSN dated March 30, 2017, p. 5.
46
Records, p. 206.
47
TSN dated March 30,2017, pp. 7-9.
48
Id. at 5.
49
Id. at 7.
50
Id. at 8.
 Decision II G.R. No. 248616

by Comma Velasco or his office. He likewise has no knowledge of the location

of the original letter.

Moreover, P/Ens Pabico does not even know who sent him a copy of
the letter. He is unaware of the identity and location of Commo Velasco's
secretary. 51 In addition, Galileo duly noted that the copy of the letter submitted
by P/Ens Pabico bore the marking "Annex A." 52 This is the same marking
placed on the copy of the letter annexed to Rene's complaint-affidavit. 53 If
indeed a copy of the letter came from Commo Velasco's secretary, then it is
baffling why it had that marking. It is therefore uncertain if Commo Velasco' s
secretary had the original letter in his or her custody. It is also doubtful that
P/Ens Pabico truly received a copy of the letter from Commo Velasco's
secretary. Hence, the genuineness of the copy of the letter that P/Ens Pabico
brought to court is questionable.

Aside from P/Ens Pabico, respondent did not present any other
evidence of the existence and receipt of the letter. Rene himself did not see
the original letter. He only received its copy from Engr. Allan, who was
likewise merely informed that a letter was supposedly sent by Galileo. 54
Anyone who may have had personal knowledge of the receipt of the letter,
such as Comma Velasco, was not presented as a witness. That being the case,
the CA erred in ruling that the RTC was correct in admitting the photocopies
of the letter presented by respondent. Respondent not only failed to prove the
existence of the letter pursuant to Section 20, Rule 132, it also failed to
establish the requirements for the presentation of secondary evidence in court
under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

It is true that Galileo did not present evidence in his defense.

Nonetheless, he refused to stipulate on the existence of the letter. 55 It is well-
settled that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove that the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 56 No less than Section 14, 57 Article III of the
1987 Constitution states that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." Therefore, a finding of
guilt must rest on the strength of the prosecution's own evidence, and not on
the weakness or absence of evidence for the defense. 58 Galileo's conviction
rests on the letter he allegedly sent to Commo Velasco. Without the letter,
there is no basis to find him guilty for libel. Respondents failed to prove the
existence of the letter and justify its failure to present the original letter in
court. The photocopies it submitted are not acceptable. Considering that
respondent failed to prove that Galileo sent a letter to Commo Velasco, it is
no longer necessary to determine whether the contents of the letter are
libelous. Consequently, Galileo must be acquitted of libel.

5l
52
53
54
55

56
Id.
Records, p. 212.
Id. at 6.
ld. at 280.
TSN dated March 30, 2017, p. 10.
t
Cana/Sr. v. People, 510 Phil. 187, 194 (2005).
57
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
58
Supra note 57.
 .., . . ~

Decision 12 G.R. No. 248616

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated

December 14, 2018 and the Resolution dated July 17, 2019 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01649-MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Galileo A. Maglasang is ACQUITTED of the crime charged
against him.

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

SAMUE~
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opin· n of the Court's Division.
 FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 248616 - GALILEO A. MAGLASANG, petitioner, versus

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Promulgated:

x - - - - ,_ _ _ _ _-=.J-=.A_N
___1=--2_~2_0~2_1=~
CONCURRING OPINION V

CAGUIOA, J.:

I concur with the ponencia that the accused Galileo A. Maglasang

(Maglasang) should be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Maglasang was charged with libel for the alleged letter that he sent to
the Commander of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) ascribing defamatory
imputations against his brother who is also a member of the PCG. The
ponencia acquits him on the ground that only a photocopy of the alleged letter
was presented in evidence.

I agree.

As early as 1931, in the case of Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga v.

Reyes, 1 the Court has already held that the Best Evidence Rule, now Original
Document Rule, applies in cases of libel. In the said case, which involved libel
arising from an article published in a newspaper, the Court held that "certainly
the copies of the weekly where the libelous article was published, and its
translation, constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The newspaper
itself is the best evidence of an article published in it." 2 Applying the same in
this case, the letter allegedly received by the Commander of the PCG is the
best evidence and should have been the one presented as evidence in
accordance with the Original Document Rule.

It is worth emphasizing that the purpose of having a rule that requires

the presentation of the original is ''to ensure that the exact contents of a writing
are brought before the court x x x [in order to] protect against misleading
inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional introduction of
selected portions of a larger set ofwritings." 3 Particularly, the rule recognizes
that:

(a) the precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is
of more than average importance, particularly as respects operative or

55 Phil. 905 (1931).

2
Id. at 908.
Heirs of Prodan v. Heirs ofAlvarez, 717 Phil. 54, 66-67 (2013).
Concurring Opinion 4 G.R. No. 248616

None of these things were proven by the prosecution. The CA simply

justified its resort to the first exception by quoting the following testimony
from the transcripts:

Q 10. Mr. Witness, this appears to be a reproduction. Will you please state
why this is just a reproduction and does not appear to be original?
Will you please explain this?

Al0. Actually, it was just sent to us coming from the office of

Commodore Ferdinand M. Velasco.

Q 11. He just sent you that photocopy?

Al 1. Actually Sir, his secretary sent me this photocopy thru an electronic

mail.

Ql2. That's why you printed it?

Al2. Yes, sir.

Q13. So, where is now the original of that Letter, or who is in possession
of the original of that Letter Mr. Witness?

A13. Actually Sir, I don't know where is the original document.

Ql4. And who is the Secretary of Commodore Velasco?

Al 4. I cannot remember the full name of his secretary because during that
time in 2014 I was at training Sir. So, I don't [have knowledge] as
to who is the Secretary of Commodore Velasco.

Q 15. Can you recall when did the secretary of Commodore Velasco e-
mailed (sic) this photocopy?

Al 5. Sometime in January or February.

Ql6. Of this year?

Al6. Yes,Sir.

Ql 7. Were you able to talk personally to the secretary of Commodore

Velasco?

Al 7. No, Sir. I just give instruction to my secretary to find this particular

documents (sic) as requested by the court.

Ql8. And where is the secretary now of Commodore Velasco (sic)?

Al 8. I have no idea Sir.

Concurring Opinion 5 G.R. No. 248616

Q 19. You mean to say that she is no longer connected there at the Phil.
Coast Guard District Office here in Corrales extension?

A19. Yes, Sir.

Q20. Where is now Commodore Velasco (sic)?

A20. Commodore Velasco is under investigation.

Q21. In other words, he is no longer in that office?

A2 l. He is in floating status, Sir.

Q22. I see. And you affirm and confirm that indeed your office received
a copy of this Letter?

A22. Yes, Sir. 11

The foregoing testimony does not establish that the original of the letter
had either been lost or destroyed. The prosecution witness who was asked to
authenticate the photocopy of the letter essentially testified that he does not
know where the original of the letter is, and neither does he know the
whereabouts of the person who sent him the photocopy of the said letter.

The foregoing testimony is thus insufficient to justify the introduction

of secondary evidence under the first exception. Verily, the offeror of
secondary evidence "is not obliged to prove the loss or destruction of the
original document beyond all possibility, as it is enough to prove a reasonable
probability of such loss." 12 Unfortunately, the above testimony does not even
establish a reasonable probability of the loss or destruction of the letter. Most
fatal of all, there is a complete absence of any showing of "a bona fide and
diligent search, fruitlessly made in places where it is likely to be found." 13

Considering that the prosecution was not able to justify its resort to the
introduction of secondary evidence, the photocopy must thus be held to be
inadmissible as evidence. Accordingly, Maglasang is entitled to an acquittal.
As aptly stated by the Court in a 1910 case:

x x x Through the lack of the original document containing the

memorandum alleged to be false, it is improper to hold, with only a copy
of the said original in view, that the crime prosecuted was committed;
and although, judging from the testimony of the witnesses who were
examined in the two consolidated causes, there is reason to entertain much
doubt as to the defendant's innocence, yet, withal, this case does not furnish
decisive and conclusive proof of their respective guilt as coprincipals of the
crime charged. Defendants in a criminal cause are always presumed to
be innocent until their guilt be fully proven, and, in case of reasonable

11
Rollo, pp. 35-36.
12
Republic v. Masongsong, G.R. No. 162846, September 22. 2005, 470 SCRA 574.
13
Id. at 583. Underscoring supplied.
 .. . ..•
'

Concurring Opinion 6 G.R. No. 248616

doubt and when their guilt is not satisfactorily shown, they are entitled
to a judgment of acquittal. 14 (Emphasis supplied)

Based on these premises, I vote to GRANT the Petition.

14 U.S. v. Gregorio, 17 Phil. 522,526 (1910).